70-200 VRI vs VRII?

[liquidmonkey1]

has anyone used both the 70-200 VRI and the VRII?
i have the VRI and am wondering if its worth upgrading to the VRII?

or maybe i should just wait for the VRIII now, although no idea if/when that will be released?

thanks!

--
own a D7000 and i have a lot to learn
http://www.rodyphoto.weebly.com

 

[SmittenHobbyist]

VR1 on DX is a budget champ
VR2 edges out the VR1 in every possible way except minimum focus distance
which i believe the VR1 allows for 0.5 meters closer focus

i own a VR1 and shoot a d7000
nikkor 17-55mm
zeiss 85

 

[Mako2011]

has anyone used both the 70-200 VRI and the VRII?
i have the VRI and am wondering if its worth upgrading to the VRII?

or maybe i should just wait for the VRIII now, although no idea if/when that will be released?

thanks!

On DX the advantages of the VR1 out way the advantages of the VRII. On FF the advantages of the VRII do indeed out way the VRI and make the upgrade a reasonable one if cost is not a large concern.

 

[liquidmonkey1]

i must be missing something here.
is the VRI for DX and the VRII for FX?

--
own a D7000 and i have a lot to learn
http://www.rodyphoto.weebly.com

 

[mosswings]

i must be missing something here.
is the VRI for DX and the VRII for FX?

--
own a D7000 and i have a lot to learn
http://www.rodyphoto.weebly.com

No. These are generations of VR technology. The less expensive lenses - which in the current Nikon lineup are usually DX but not always, have VR I. The more expensive lenses, DX or FX, have VR II. But different generations of the same lens can have different VR technology. This support question details the differences in VR generations:

https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/21601/~/what-is-the-difference-between-%22vr%22-and-%22vr-ii%22%3F

And here is Nikon Imaging's website on VR technology:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/concept/vr/en/technology/

I was a bit confused by SmittenHobbyist's response, but then I realized that he was talking about the optical design of the different generations of the 70-200 lens, not the VR systems they employ. Minimum focusing distance has nothing to do with VR.

 

[Mako2011]

i must be missing something here.
is the VRI for DX and the VRII for FX?

--
own a D7000 and i have a lot to learn
http://www.rodyphoto.weebly.com

No. These are generations of VR technology. The less expensive lenses - which in the current Nikon lineup are usually DX but not always, have VR I. The more expensive lenses, DX or FX, have VR II.

Not true. When VRII was develpoed, all lens made after that had VRII. It's not a DX vs FF thing.

I was a bit confused by SmittenHobbyist's response, but then I realized that he was talking about the optical design of the different generations of the 70-200 lens, not the VR systems they employ. Minimum focusing distance has nothing to do with VR.

The VRII version is significantly sharper in the corners, less vignetting and has more contrast, but has much greater focus breathing than the old one. Those advantages don't really show up as well on DX as the size of the DX sensor means the outer portion of the lens aren't projected and only the center portion of the lens is seen by the DX sensor. The VRI version is very good in the center so the advantages of VRII are almost lost on DX.

Also, some report the VRI having better center sharpness and bokeh than the VRII while the VRII being better with teleconverters than the VRI.

 

[Jogger]

If its your workhorse lens, then sure go for it, might as well get the best. If not, then probably money better spent on other lenses.

has anyone used both the 70-200 VRI and the VRII?
i have the VRI and am wondering if its worth upgrading to the VRII?

or maybe i should just wait for the VRIII now, although no idea if/when that will be released?

thanks!

--
own a D7000 and i have a lot to learn
http://www.rodyphoto.weebly.com

 

[mosswings]

i must be missing something here.
is the VRI for DX and the VRII for FX?

--
own a D7000 and i have a lot to learn
http://www.rodyphoto.weebly.com

No. These are generations of VR technology. The less expensive lenses - which in the current Nikon lineup are usually DX but not always, have VR I. The more expensive lenses, DX or FX, have VR II.

Not true. When VRII was develpoed, all lens made after that had VRII. It's not a DX vs FF thing.

Hmm...point taken, Sorry. The 18-55, 55-200, and 18-105 that are bundled with the consumer DX bodies are VR I, and are the least expensive zooms in Nikon's lineup. The 18-200, 16-85, 55-300, and 70-300 are VR II. What threw me off is that VR II started showing up on the metal-mount DX line BEFORE the 18-55, 55-200, and 18-105 came out - in the 16-85, 18-200, and 70-300.

So, yes, all newer lenses have been VR II; even in the 55-300, which is a lower grade lens than the 70-300. It waits to be seen whether Nikon will revise their low-end lenses to include VR II. Somehow I doubt it.

 

[Peter Jonas]

i must be missing something here.
is the VRI for DX and the VRII for FX?

No.

The two lenses are:

70-200/2.8 VR.

Not VR I, but people refer to it that way to differentiate it from the new genreration lens, and

70-200/2.8 VR II.

Where the "II" does not refer to the type of VR employed in the lens, but rather, it refers to the entire lens as the second version (or MkII if you like) of this lens.

They are both designed for full frame coverage. However, when the first version was released in early 2003, Nikon had no full frame digital cameras on the market, so noone really knew how it would perform on those. It was a fantastic performer on the DX cameras at the time, but later on, when the D3 was released it turned out that this lens produced slightly soft corners and some vignetting at the 200 mm end wide open on full frame images.

The second version was released in the middle of 2009. It has a completely different optical design, a more advanced VR system and it is fully optimised for full frame coverage. The only issue some people have with it is that when focused close to minimum focusing distance at the 200 mm end of the zoom range its acctual focal length is reduced to about 130 mm. This is perfectly fine for some people, yet it bothers others. But the lens is very sharp corner to corner, it has less vignetting, and some even say it has improved contrast and superior colour rendering over the first generation lens.

However, for most people the the first generation lens remains a terrific option for DX users, where the lens still performs rather brilliantly.

That is why some say that if you have DX then the earlier lens will be fine, but if you use FX then its worthwhile to spend the extra money and get the MkII.

And that's all there is to it.

By the way, the MkII version is so highly regarded and so successful (high in demand) that it is unlikely to be upgraded for some years to come. So if you want to take pictures get one that is available now.

I think the first generation was eventually phased out of production and today it can only be purchased second hand. The MkII version is of course available both new and second hand.

Try them and take your pick.

Good luck.

--
Cheers,

Peter Jonas

 

[liquidmonkey1]

THAT is an awesome explanation.
thank you very much for taking your time to write it

i must be missing something here.
is the VRI for DX and the VRII for FX?

No.

The lenses are:
70-200/2.8 VR (not VRI) and

70-200/2.8 VR II where the "II" does not refer to the type of VR employed in the lens, but rather, it refers to the entire lens as the second version (or MkII if you like) of this lens.

They are both designed for full frame coverage. However, when the first version was released in early 2003, Nikon had no full frame digital cameras on the market, so noone really knew how it would perform on those. It was a fantastic performer on the DX cameras at the time, but later on, when the D3 was released it turned out that this lens produced slightly soft corners and some vignetting at the 200 mm end wide open on full frame images.

The second version was released in the middle of 2009. It has a completely different optical design, a more advanced VR system and it is fully optimised for full frame coverage. The only issue some people have with it is that when focused close to minimum focusing distance at the 200 mm end of the zoom range its acctual focal length is reduced to about 130 mm. This is perfectly fine for some people, yet it bothers others. But the lens is very sharp corner to corner, it has less vignetting, and some even say it has improved contrast and superior colour rendering over the first generation lens.

However, for most people the the first generation lens remains a terrific option for DX users, where the lens still performs rather brilliantly.

That is why some say that if you have DX then the earlier lens will be fine, but if you use FX then its worthwhile to spend the extra money and get the MkII.

And that's all there is to it.

By the way, the MkII version is so highly regarded and so successful (high in demand) that it is unlikely to be upgraded for some years to come. So if you want to take pictures get one that is available now.

I think the first generation was eventually phased out of production and it can only be purchased today second hand. The MkII version is of course available both new and second hand.

Try them and take your pick.

Good luck.

--
Cheers,

Peter Jonas

--
own a D7000 and i have a lot to learn
http://www.rodyphoto.weebly.com

 

[SmittenHobbyist]

this was pretty obvious

I guess I need to realize I might be dealing with people who are photographically ignorant

I will dumb it down for you next time like Peter Jonas
actual lol

VR1 on DX is a budget champ
VR2 edges out the VR1 in every possible way except minimum focus distance
which i believe the VR1 allows for 0.5 meters closer focus

i own a VR1 and shoot a d7000
nikkor 17-55mm
zeiss 85

 

[Marianne Oelund]

has anyone used both the 70-200 VRI and the VRII?
i have the VRI and am wondering if its worth upgrading to the VRII?

Not unless you will be purchasing an FX camera. On the D7000, the first version is still excellent, and you will be better off putting your money elsewhere.

The VR I benefits greatly by stopping down to f/4, either alone or with TC's. Used that way, it's absolutely top-notch and matches or betters the VR II on DX.

Wide open at f/2.8, you might see some advantage with the VR II, but this would likely only be for closer subject distances (and keep in mind for that range, the VR I will have higher magnification). The VR II does not benefit as much from stopping down.

 

[mosswings]

Thanks for the clarification, Peter. Lens and feature designations are such a marketing word salad that it's tough to figure out which descriptor refers to which feature.

 

[tundracamper]

Wide open at f/2.8, you might see some advantage with the VR II, but this would likely only be for closer subject distances (and keep in mind for that range, the VR I will have higher magnification). The VR II does not benefit as much from stopping down

I would agree. I've never been happy with the VRI wide open at 200 on DX. It is somewhat soft and can exhibit ghosting on backilt subjects. Most reviews seem to concur. If I didn't have a 200mm prime, I'd probably upgrade.

 

[Joe Porto]

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm

Note especially the difference in field of view between the 2 lenses at various distances.

And as previously mentioned, the version 1 has the normal/active switch, and hence would be considered second generation VR.

 

[SmittenHobbyist]

you have a bad copy or ludicrous expectations
news flash
a 70-200 won't perform like a 200mm prime

Wide open at f/2.8, you might see some advantage with the VR II, but this would likely only be for closer subject distances (and keep in mind for that range, the VR I will have higher magnification). The VR II does not benefit as much from stopping down

I would agree. I've never been happy with the VRI wide open at 200 on DX. It is somewhat soft and can exhibit ghosting on backilt subjects. Most reviews seem to concur. If I didn't have a 200mm prime, I'd probably upgrade.

 

[peterclark55]

The vr 1 is just a perfect lens in my book. Hard to beat and not worth upgrading unless you have a lot of $ to spend freely, Peter
--
http://www.pbase.com/peter55/galleries

 

[Shotcents]

To say that a lens, which drops 40-70mm of reach in typical portrait/wedding/party type shooting "bothers" some people is a bit of an understatement.

Casual shoots may be fine with the defect, but that level of focal breathing is among the worst of ANY pro zoom.

I still have my VRII, but I repurchased the VRI. So did a LOT of other people. Look what the VRI is selling for now. The VRII is a good lens, but the breathing issue truly cripples it for some people. Consider how you shoot before buying. My copy of the VRI gives up little sharpness compared to the VRII and I don't use a zoom to shoot landscapes, let alone without stopping down.

Robert

 

[devenh]

Along with what others have said, I found that on a D3 body that the VRII produced significantly more in focus shots that the VRI when photographing action. Perhaps it was just my VRI copy, but it's focus tracking was the worse than the 200-400 VRI and (although this comes as no surprise) the 200 f2 VRI.

Deven

 

[Tommot1965]

has anyone used both the 70-200 VRI and the VRII?
i have the VRI and am wondering if its worth upgrading to the VRII?

or maybe i should just wait for the VRIII now, although no idea if/when that will be released?

thanks!

--
own a D7000 and i have a lot to learn
http://www.rodyphoto.weebly.com

samples from a center crop from a Vr1 and a Vr II...the vr1 was a used example that the shop had ..I almost went for it..but after seeing the crops and because I wanted to use a 1.7x TC with the lens I opted for the VII

as you can see the VII is quite a bit sharper at 100% cropping and has better contrast

these are 100% and 200% crops